If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Rise of Nazi Germany/Modern-Day America

Before I get started, I just want to say that Iím not a gun owner. I abhor violence and think that spreading knowledge is the best way to combat evil. With that said, let me take a second to put my tin foil hat on.
Bloody revolutions are the most common way dictators come to power; but every so often a dictator takes control from within. If a dictator ever takes control of the U.S., it will likely be from within. In order for this to happen, certain conditions must be met. The most common element present in the rise of tyranny is economic turmoil. Fear is also a useful tool, as it helps establish control. As for traits to look for in a dictator, charisma is a must. One doesn't necessarily need to display passion in his or her speeches, so long as the targeted audience can get worked up. Look up any 20th century dictator, and they all had very devoted (if not cult-like) followings.
Hitler promised Germans a wide array of things. "Change we can believe in", so to speak. "He skillfully played on the emotions of the audience bringing the level of excitement higher and higher until the people wound up a wide-eyed, screaming, frenzied mass that surrendered to his will and looked upon him with pseudo-religious adoration." [www.historyplace.com] Sound familiar? Hitler, however, was able to keep some of his promises to the people. Germany went from having a broken economy with a weakened army, to having a strong enough economy to fund an army that almost conquered the world.
Germany's political setting was advantageous for his political aspirations, but even he failed several times along the way. The checks meant to keep Hitler (some of the checks near the end were meant specifically for Hitler) from attaining too much power eventually failed. The sad thing is this: there were people at the time (prior to Hitler becoming dictator) that were saying many of the same things the "paranoid" are now saying about President Obama. ". . . sure Hitler took advantage of the economic turmoil, is charismatic, and has a cult following . . . so what? It was Chancellor Bruening that first worked his way around the Constitution. ď And they were right to a certain extent. Those things alone didn't make Hitler the man history remembers him as.
Before I continue, let me address the gun control issue. Hitler didn't disarm his citizens; per se. Germany was already disarmed thanks to The Treaty of Versailles. As a matter of fact, Hitler's '38 gun law helped put guns back into the hands of ordinary citizens (so long as they weren't "undesirable"). If anything, the '38 gun law gave the illusion of liberty to most of its citizens, while ensuring the number of guns in circulation was still very low. Keeping the number of firearms amongst the civilian populace at a low number is important for maintaining power, but not as important as security or the ability to gather intelligence on one's citizens. Without the means to assemble, even a well-armed resistance is no guarantee to succeed. Needless to say, fewer firearms further reduce the odds of a successful resistance. (All this, of course, is assuming that peaceful means of resolution have failed.)
Now, let's take a look at the things that further helped Hitler's rise to power:A. Hitler vilified his political opposition, specifically his predecessor and the communist party. I mean, after all, it was the opposition's fault so many were living in poverty. It was this thought process that many German citizens used to justify Hitler murdering his opposition. Hitler's enemies were in the way of progress. B. Hitler incited fear and encouraged citizens to spy on one another. The Gestapo was formed in 1934. The Gestapo, by the way, was considered a sister organization to the Sicherheitsdienst (the first Nazi Party intelligence organization). C. Hitler had a private army.D. Hitler dissolved the Reichstag. "Hitler's plan was to establish a majority of elected Nazis in the Reichstag which would become a rubber stamp, passing whatever laws he desired while making it all perfectly legal." [www.historyplace.com]E. After the Reichstag fire (orchestrated by Hitler), The Reichstag Fire Decree became law. "[T]he regulations suspended important provisions of the German constitution, especially those safeguarding individual rights and due process of law. The decree permitted the restriction of the right to assembly, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press, among other rights, and it removed all restraints on police investigations. With the decree in place, the regime was free to arrest and incarcerate political opponents without specific charge, dissolve political organizations, and suppress publications. It also gave the central government the authority to overrule state and local laws and overthrow state and local governments. This law became a permanent feature of the Nazi police state."
How is this relevant to where we stand today?A. Obama is in his 2nd term and he's still blaming others for his administration's lack of progress. Though, to his credit, he hasn't murdered any of his political opposition. Then again, this administration is targeting whistleblowers and "hactivists" like no administration has ever done. http://leaksource.wordpress.com/2013...civic-hacking/

Here's a video that explains the context of "the line that was crossed."

Anonymous, by the way, is a movement that focuses on raising public awareness. Their message is this: Your civil liberties are being stripped away, and the longer you ignore this fact, the easier it is for those in power to keep on abusing their powers. For the record, I'm not "anti-government".
I believe central government is essential to keeping order, among other things. But we've reached the point where individual rights mean little, and when it comes to the "protection" of U.S. citizens, the cost doesn't matter, because the end will always justify the means.
As if U.S. surveillance wasn't already out of control, there are supposed to be 30,000 drones over U.S. skies by 2020. Oh. And it just so happens that it is legal to target (and kill) U.S. citizens (even if they're with their children). But wait, it gets better! There are fools like Jesse Jackson pushing for armed TSA agents in larger cities like Chicago. Brilliant! So Martial Law is enforced, without the declaration of Martial Law. http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news...americans?lite

http://www.salon.com/2012/03/06/atto...thout_charges/http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...-list-doj-memo
Using fear as a means to push one's agenda is nothing new. George W. Bush stood on the corpses of 9/11 victims to push The PATRIOT Act forward, just like Obama is using children as human shields to push for gun control. As Rahm Emanuel would say, "you never want a serious crisis to go to waste."
As for this administration sewing seeds of distrust, check out the DHS website. There's a video made in 2010 that originally started playing at airports. It's now playing in hotels. The message is this, 'watch out for terrorists, they could be anyone and everyone.' The video seems reasonable until one pairs it with videos like this:

C. Obama is using the PATRIOT Act to target political opposition. See the crackdown on whistle blowers and "hacktivists". He's doing this through a number of federal agencies, so he probably doesn't even need a private army. But just for good measure, there's a portion of the Healthcare Law that enables the President to call on citizens during times of trouble (presumably during times of natural disaster).
Even assuming that there is no connection between Factcheck.org and Obama, their answer to the "Obama's private army" question doesn't touch on what the law can do, only on what the law was intended to do. The intention of any given law only holds so much weight. The important thing is how the law can be interpreted by whoever is in power. I'd like to see multiple law experts go on record saying that this particular section of the Healthcare Bill can't be used to create a militia.http://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/obamas-private-army/

D & E. Obama hasn't dissolved the Legislative and Judicial Branches. Awesome. I guess that means we're safe. Of course the checks and balances system that was supposed to keep our Constitution intact, thereby, keeping our civil liberties intact, failed to prevent such laws as The PATRIOT Act, The National Defense Authorization Act, The National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order, and H.R. 347.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech...g-protest-bill
The same checks and balances system also failed to prevent the government from teaming up with major corporations, allowing the government to work its way around the law for your "protection". Here are some examples:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...nsadatacenter/
People may not know this, but there's supposed to be a degree of transparency between a government and its people. Unless there is probable cause, we, as citizens, are supposed to be the ones shielded from our government. Not the other way around. And yet: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ts_700274.html
The government monitors almost every aspect of our lives (phone calls, online activity, financial transactions etc.). How is it that we are only allowed to view about 10.5% of the information requested? How did things become so inverted?
Dictators like Hitler and Stalin could've only dreamed of having the laws, federal agencies, and technology that the U.S. currently has in place to "protect" its citizens. Does this mean that President Obama will gain absolute power? Who knows. But does it really matter if we have one leader that abuses his powers or a revolving door of leaders doing the same thing? If it's over the same time frame, what does it matter?

Rise of Nazi Germany/Modern-Day America

Listen, I don't agree with many of Obama's policies, but he is in no way a tyrant. I do think that some of the recent adjustments made to our governing process could lead to a tyranny down the road if these issues are not resolved, but it won't be Obama. Let's not forget that W. got this ball rolling after 9/11.

But really, both he and W. serve the same master. This is a corporatocracy. In such a system, there is no need for tyranny. The people who truly run this system would have no interest in creating a tyrannical police state.

For those looking for the cliffnotes version: Obama is the next Hitler because he prosecutes those who technically break the law and he blames Republicans for filibusters. Oh, and Stalin, the Gestapo, and Martial Law are brought up while also attempting to indirectly link Factcheck.org to Obama.

Anyone interested in a good old fashion character assassination should read up.

Listen, I don't agree with many of Obama's policies, but he is in no way a tyrant. I do think that some of the recent adjustments made to our governing process could lead to a tyranny down the road if these issues are not resolved, but it won't be Obama. Let's not forget that W. got this ball rolling after 9/11.

But really, both he and W. serve the same master. This is a corporatocracy. In such a system, there is no need for tyranny. The people who truly run this system would have no interest in creating a tyrannical police state.

I finished it off by saying:

Originally Posted by Breed

Does this mean that President Obama will gain absolute power? Who knows. But does it really matter if we have one leader that abuses his powers or a revolving door of leaders doing the same thing? If it's over the same time frame, what does it matter?

Aside from being an informal fallacy depending on usage, such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda.[2] The traditional example is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, he will admit to having a wife, and having beaten her at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed.[2] The fallacy relies upon context for its effect: the fact that a question presupposes something does not in itself make the question fallacious. Only when some of these presuppositions are not necessarily agreed to by the person who is asked the question does the argument containing them become fallacious.[2] Hence the same question may be loaded in one context, but not in the other. For example the previous question would not be loaded if it was asked during a trial in which the defendant has already admitted to beating his wife.[2]

I was simply implying that much of the legislation that has passed since 9/11 will very likely lead to tyranny at some point in the future. Context.

You were asking rhetoric filled "questions" with the only answer fulfilling your agenda. Its no different then someone confronting you and asking "when did you stop raping women?" and if you got upset the questioner pulls back and says "hey man, i was just asking a question". It requires absolutely no proof whatsoever.

Its a logical fallacy and one that is easily defeated by anyone with even a small amount of common sense. Oh, and "context" was addressed in the link i quoted: